Battlefield 1943 sounds like a downgraded Battlefield 1942...

I haven't played, either, but Game Informer basically said that they took only THREE maps from Battlefield 1942, reworked them a bit, cut down the amount of classes, and then shipped it out. Less classes and less maps? What? Is this the low price-point of this game the stand-out feature, or is there something here I'm missing!?

DeathScape666

Try actually playing either game and you'd see how great they are. I'm a huge fan of Battlefield 1942 and I have to say Battlefield 1943 does a great job at bringing that experience over and keeping it fresh. Plus they used the maps that were played on the most and often favored on the PC version and this is pretty much what I've been wanting for a long time on the consoles.

1943 is a great game at a great price and its worth every penny, plus didn't they say they'd be putting out more maps or something like that later on down the lines? Isn't DLC just the best?

They upgraded the engine and graphics, streamlined the classes and game play, and shrunk the maps to increase the amount of action. It's better than BF1942 game play wise and has a more arcade-y feel to it. There's less pointless travel since the maps are a little smaller, there's regenerative health (which takes a while to kick in) and infinite ammo (reload and refresh timers are long) so you don't have to trek all the way to a health and ammo box. There is no need for the medic class or support classes since you have regenerating health and infinite ammo, anti-armor was incorporated with the Infantry class and snipers have access to the powerful pipe-bombs. Classes are perfectly balanced and the game feels like a refined PC Battlefield experience.cametall

But its a $12 downloadable game that LOOKS better than the original that has better online play and trophies/achievments.

[QUOTE="SparkyProtocol"]Why do people even ask when they clearly have internet and can go to the official site, read reviews, or just download the trial?DeathScape666

I never heard of it. You shouldn't get hyped for a game just because it is exclusive.SparkyProtocol

[QUOTE="cametall"]They upgraded the engine and graphics, streamlined the classes and game play, and shrunk the maps to increase the amount of action. It's better than BF1942 game play wise and has a more arcade-y feel to it. There's less pointless travel since the maps are a little smaller, there's regenerative health (which takes a while to kick in) and infinite ammo (reload and refresh timers are long) so you don't have to trek all the way to a health and ammo box. There is no need for the medic class or support classes since you have regenerating health and infinite ammo, anti-armor was incorporated with the Infantry class and snipers have access to the powerful pipe-bombs. Classes are perfectly balanced and the game feels like a refined PC Battlefield experience.DeathScape666

Battlefield 2 is still the best BF game ever.

Battlefield 2 is still the best BF game ever.

Uptown

I have not played 1942...so for me 1943 is a solid value for 15 bucks as It's a quick pick up and play game that all my friends are playing right now

I think most of the core gamers who got this game know this already. Its basically the mini version of 1942 but with the frostbite engine put on top of it. Those who played battlefield would know what they're getting, but that doesn't mean those people didn't get this game.

To sum it up, battlefield was a phenomenon for its time.

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"][QUOTE="Wii_Gamer_277"]I stopped reading when you said you havent played it :roll: Stop letting magazines think for you and play the game yourself, then you could make your own opinion on the game.Wii_Gamer_277

[QUOTE="cametall"]They upgraded the engine and graphics, streamlined the classes and game play, and shrunk the maps to increase the amount of action. It's better than BF1942 game play wise and has a more arcade-y feel to it. There's less pointless travel since the maps are a little smaller, there's regenerative health (which takes a while to kick in) and infinite ammo (reload and refresh timers are long) so you don't have to trek all the way to a health and ammo box. There is no need for the medic class or support classes since you have regenerating health and infinite ammo, anti-armor was incorporated with the Infantry class and snipers have access to the powerful pipe-bombs. Classes are perfectly balanced and the game feels like a refined PC Battlefield experience.DeathScape666

I haven't played, either,

DeathScape666

For $15 its some of the most fun I have had.

Wasdie

For $15 its some of the most fun I have had.

Wasdie

For $15 its some of the most fun I have had.

I haven't played, either, but Game Informer basically said that they took only THREE maps from Battlefield 1942, reworked them a bit, cut down the amount of classes, and then shipped it out. Less classes and less maps? What? Is this the low price-point of this game the stand-out feature, or is there something here I'm missing!?

DeathScape666

Finally, someone else sees this. I have been preaching this for over a month now. They expect me to pay money for this, I laugh at anyone that does.

from what I have played, yhe game rocks

I would say Battlefield Heroes is a downgrade to the "Battlefield franchise". You get 4 maps, lag and tons of bugs. You have to spend $20 on just one guy to get clothes. Worst Battlefield game ever.

If China could make a milking game... They would have made Heroes.

Yeah, I know... It's free... So what? It's a bad free game to take peoples money away.

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"]

I haven't played, either, but Game Informer basically said that they took only THREE maps from Battlefield 1942, reworked them a bit, cut down the amount of classes, and then shipped it out. Less classes and less maps? What? Is this the low price-point of this game the stand-out feature, or is there something here I'm missing!?

Finally, someone else sees this. I have been preaching this for over a month now. They expect me to pay money for this, I laugh at anyone that does.

[QUOTE="WiiMan21"]

Yeah you need Gold to play it, or you could just buy a Ps3 and not worry about cost of XBL.

yes if you want to use the inferior service then that is the way to go

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"]I haven't played, either,

-Karmum-

[QUOTE="PublicNuisance"]

[QUOTE="DeathScape666"]

I haven't played, either, but Game Informer basically said that they took only THREE maps from Battlefield 1942, reworked them a bit, cut down the amount of classes, and then shipped it out. Less classes and less maps? What? Is this the low price-point of this game the stand-out feature, or is there something here I'm missing!?

h575309

Finally, someone else sees this. I have been preaching this for over a month now. They expect me to pay money for this, I laugh at anyone that does.

So your paying $15 for a graphics mod with smaller maps and servers. To each their own but I think they're trying to milk you and your letting them.

[QUOTE="h575309"][QUOTE="PublicNuisance"]

Finally, someone else sees this. I have been preaching this for over a month now. They expect me to pay money for this, I laugh at anyone that does.

PublicNuisance

So your paying $15 for a graphics mod with smaller maps and servers. To each their own but I think they're trying to milk you and your letting them.

If you nver played 1942 then its well worth it. For £9.99 I'll definately get it. i watched a gameplay vid and a review and it looks really fun. Yeah it has less maps but more should come with DLC, and considering the initial price I'll be happy to buy it. And it just seems like gameplay and graphics wise its better than 1942.

If you nver played 1942 then its well worth it. For £9.99 I'll definately get it. i watched a gameplay vid and a review and it looks really fun. Yeah it has less maps but more should come with DLC, and considering the initial price I'll be happy to buy it. And it just seems like gameplay and graphics wise its better than 1942.

NinjaMunkey01

1942 can be had on PC for $10 these days and doesn't require a lot of horsepower. It may be better graphics wise but from what I read the gameplay seems like it will suffer.

maybe idk, anyway idc, it's a blast to play and me and my friends are having a ton of fun with it for a measily $15.

this one may even hold my multiplayer attn until fat princess comes out...maybe

btw, lulz...gameinformer...wow the shill publication for gamestop had negative things to say about a dlc only game??? har har!

[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"]

If you nver played 1942 then its well worth it. For £9.99 I'll definately get it. i watched a gameplay vid and a review and it looks really fun. Yeah it has less maps but more should come with DLC, and considering the initial price I'll be happy to buy it. And it just seems like gameplay and graphics wise its better than 1942.

1942 can be had on PC for $10 these days and doesn't require a lot of horsepower. It may be better graphics wise but from what I read the gameplay seems like it will suffer.

p.s.

gameinformer to world, we can't buy bf 43 in our brick and mortar stores from people for $2.50 and sell it to the next guy that comes along for $39.99 let us tell you what sux about it....

I think you're missing the point of 1943. :?

the gameplay is supposed to be more streamlined I think. There are less classes but the classes have the extra bits in them. Plus the maps are smaller so you dont have to travel so far to get into battle which makes it more intense. Its basically 1942 with updated graphics, more streamlined gameplay so it can appeal to the casuals too and less content, but then at a lower price. Ive always wanted a first person warhawk type game. The only thing for me is that it doesnt seem to have online splitscreen, and considering ths game isnt that taxing for the ps3 or 360, im wonderning why not... =\NinjaMunkey01

Oh so now I am supposed to pay $15 for a game dumbed down for casuals ? That makes me want it even more.

/sarcasm

I think you're missing the point of 1943. :?

Verge_6

No I get the point, I just don't like their point.

[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"]the gameplay is supposed to be more streamlined I think. There are less classes but the classes have the extra bits in them. Plus the maps are smaller so you dont have to travel so far to get into battle which makes it more intense. Its basically 1942 with updated graphics, more streamlined gameplay so it can appeal to the casuals too and less content, but then at a lower price. Ive always wanted a first person warhawk type game. The only thing for me is that it doesnt seem to have online splitscreen, and considering ths game isnt that taxing for the ps3 or 360, im wonderning why not... =\PublicNuisance

Oh so now I am supposed to pay $15 for a game dumbed down for casuals ? That makes me want it even more.

/sarcasm

Its a great game, especiaqlly for a 15$ downloadable game.
If it had a few more maps it would be near perfect.

Definatly wortht he 15$ though imo.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

I think you're missing the point of 1943. :?

PublicNuisance

No I get the point, I just don't like their point.

Basically here is why I will not buy this game:

Q. Is there a commander like previous bf games?

A. No.

Q. Will there be blood in the game?

A. No, BF1943 will not have blood.

Q. How does the health and ammo system work?

A. You have unlimited ammo and regenerating health. When ammo runs out, it has a replenish timer that will regenerate ammo and health regenerates when you aren't taking damage.

Q. How many maps are there?

A. Four maps total.

Q. Is there a c lass system? Q. What c lass's can I choose from?

A. Yes, each faction will have 3 c lass. The c lass's are the same between factions, but their weapons are slightly different. Read about the USMC ****s and the IJN c lass's.

If they were trying to make this game more like BF2 then they failed pretty bad. I would have prefered they had just left it alone.

[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"]the gameplay is supposed to be more streamlined I think. There are less classes but the classes have the extra bits in them. Plus the maps are smaller so you dont have to travel so far to get into battle which makes it more intense. Its basically 1942 with updated graphics, more streamlined gameplay so it can appeal to the casuals too and less content, but then at a lower price. Ive always wanted a first person warhawk type game. The only thing for me is that it doesnt seem to have online splitscreen, and considering ths game isnt that taxing for the ps3 or 360, im wonderning why not... =\PublicNuisance

Oh so now I am supposed to pay $15 for a game dumbed down for casuals ? That makes me want it even more.

/sarcasm

[QUOTE="PublicNuisance"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

I think you're missing the point of 1943. :?

Verge_6

No I get the point, I just don't like their point.

I would love to, except DICE felt it right to not release the PC version until the fall. One more reason for me not to want it.

Arcade is usually casual and I am gonna guess you havent played it yet by your responses.h575309

Yeah I hopped on the 360 and PS3 I don't have to play it 24/7. They haven't released itr for PC, how am I supposed to have played it ? I never said I had played it.

seems like the TC should have went and downloaded the demo instead of making threads that could be seen as flame bait.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="PublicNuisance"]

No I get the point, I just don't like their point.

PublicNuisance

I would love to, except DICE felt it right to not release the PC version until the fall. One more reason for me not to want it.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="PublicNuisance"]

No I get the point, I just don't like their point.

I would love to, except DICE felt it right to not release the PC version until the fall. One more reason for me not to want it.

That's fine by me, as, going by your responses, you're still completely and totally missing the point about the game. Verge_6

The explain the point of the game O Wise One.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] That's fine by me, as, going by your responses, you're still completely and totally missing the point about the game. PublicNuisance

The explain the point of the game O Wise One.

It's been explained. Multiple times. In this very thread. Verge_6

Really ? The only point I have seen is that I should spend $15 because it is watered down for casuals.